« Dispatch from Ohio: Even The Wave radio station is all political ads, all the time
Texas Poll: Democratic Primary Tie As Clinton Obama Divide Electorate »



The Foreign Policy Crapshoot

March 2nd, 2008
By POLIMOM

Print Print

In response to an article today in the Times of London, blogger Jeralyn at TalkLeft writes that she doesn’t feel comfortable with what she knows about Barack Obama, and that if he wins the Democratic nomination, she’ll “be voting for him with [her] fingers crossed”. (My own response to the Times article is here.)

Here on TMV, our own Holly has similarly given voice to concerns, and even gone so far as to write that if Obama is the nominee, she’ll be voting for McCain.

I understand both of these positions. They’re not irrational, nor should they be judged merely by the candidates they support (or don’t). It’s correct to question; concern should be present when we elect a president.

In fact, every time I’ve voted in a presidential election, bar none, I’ve crossed my fingers and hoped for the best. There’s simply no way to predict with certainty how an individual will respond real-time in the presidential pressure-cooker.

In 2000, nobody asked George Bush how he’d respond to planes flying into the Pentagon and the WTC. In 1980, was Ronald Reagan pondering his response to an attack on a marine barracks in Beirut? And while I admit that I could have missed it, I don’t recall campaign questions for Bill Clinton about what his plans were for Kosovo.

Until someone is actually called upon to respond in a crisis, there’s really no way to know what they will do… and that applies to John McCain every bit as much as it does Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

And all of this is why Hillary’s latest ad in Texas doesn’t resonate with me… and why Obama’s response does. Even if Obama had said nothing about Iraq in 2002, Clinton and McCain’s poor judgment would still be a factor. It’s disengenous to say, as McCain has, that Obama’s only looking backward. He’s not — but he is pointing out one of the very few measures we can take.

As it happens, Barack Obama’s foreign policy approach, from his willingness to talk to the enemy to his calls for more help from our NATO allies, appeals directly to my own thinking. While that doesn’t necessarily tell me how he will handle a serious crisis, it gives me an idea of how he will set the stage.

In an uncertain world, that’s about the best we can hope for.

We can never be certain. There are no crystal balls. It’s always just a bit of a crapshoot.



This entry was posted on Sunday, March 2nd, 2008 at 8:30 am and is filed under Foreign Policy, Newsweek Blogitics, John McCain, Barack Obama, Foreign Affairs, Hillary Clinton, 2008 Elections. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 11 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Excellent post Polimom. I have nothing to add.
    • ^
    • v
    Which candidate to support is a debate in which moderates can reasonably disagree. Hallelujah!

    I prefer Obama, would campaign hard for Hillary, and would respect and appreciate McCain for many issues important to me. Each puts us on a more enlightened path.

    From one point of view they are already working together to accelerate the movement of both parties to the center where cooperation and compromise can flourish.

    Now if we can only defeat the legislators who have more allegiance to their party and special interests than the Country.
    • ^
    • v
    It is somewhat of a crapshoot, on either foreign or domestic policy.
    Even if there is a candidate whose policy positions are the mirror image of one's own, evaluating the extent to which those policies could actually be implemented by a particular candidate involves a lot of crystal ball gazing.
    I, too, have crossed my fingers EVERY TIME I've voted. The consequences of election results have risen sharply, and the country is at a crossroads on many issues. In that context, I think it takes a lot more than just crossed fingers to cast the best vote possible.

    I find the 'spite' vote (I don't like X, so I'll vote for his opponent)) extremely troublesome. One might get the candidate who speaks to one's primary concerns, but along with that comes a whole host of other policy positions that will have to be lived with as a consequence. Too much of Obama's support comes from anti-Hillary spite votes, IMO.

    At the same time, I really like Obama. That is not to say that I think he is flawless. He is not Superman. I disagree with him on several issues. Before I cast my vote, however, I'll try hard to block out the political hype for and against him, to decide whether or not he is the best hope for the whole country.

    This brings me to my final point. I think it is crucially important to consider what is good for the country, for everyone, and not just good to further my particular self interests. I learned my lesson, several times, when I voted on the basis of foreign policy alone and then had to live with the domestic consequences.

    From now until November, I'll be calculating and recalculaitng, trying to line up ALL of the ducks in such a way that they point to the candidate I will, finally, vote for. .

    Who knew that voting could be such hard work?
    • ^
    • v
    I think Obama is head and shoulders above the other two in the important ability to inspire and thus to lead, and in his approach to restoring the standing of America in the world. I will work and vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination, but never McCain, who will surely extend the disaster of the Bush years on so many fronts--civil liberties, aggressive foreign policy, extending expensive tax cuts, pandering to corporate interests at the expense of the public good.

    Polimom, I can't see what difference it would have made had Clinton declared that he would do just what Bush pledged to do in Kosovo.

    "I don’t recall campaign questions for Bill Clinton about what his plans were for Kosovo."

    Late that year (1992), U.S. President George Bush warns the Serbs that the United States will use force if the Serbs attack Kosovo. - CNN
    • ^
    • v
    Better, I think, to have experience in the executive department, regardless of party affiliation, than the cronyism we've seen for the past several years.

    Would this be yet another thing the West Wing picked up from David Axelrod, or did the Obama campaign pick it up from the show?
    • ^
    • v
    When it comes to experience, I don't think executive experience should be the benchmark to end all benchmarks. Otherwise, all 2nd term presidents would be brilliant at it. Historically, 2nd term presidensies are a vey miced bag.

    More important is political experience, but that has a negative component along with the positive. It seems to me that Hillary has framed her campaign very much as a reaction to the political scars she bears, from the past, and the changed mood in the country , at lteast as it applies to the primaries, took her by surprise.

    At the same time, Obama's good judgement about the wisdom of invading Iraq is no guarantee that his judgment will be equally wise when the next
    decision, of equal importance, has to be made.

    Conditions shift and change. and the most important qualtiy in a leader, IMO, is the ability to NOT rely too heavily on past experience or on past judgment calls. Our leaders need to adapt to a changing world and to our changing (read: diminished) role in its management.

    Who is best suited to adapt? It's impossible to tell from political speeches and published policy statements. No candidate will be candid about US limitaions during election seadon, (which has turned into a year round affatir)..

    McCain relies too much on our military supremacy, which is the opposite of adapting, IMO.
    Hillary wafftles between being militarily tough and bowing to the nation's 'get out of Iraq' mood.

    Obama does represent a new vision in foreign affairs, What I would like to know ( but don't, yet) is whether or not he recognizes the evoutionary principle of adapting or perishing. Will he continue to adapt as new world events change the international scene further? Will he recognize the signs when his own policies fail to work and are in need of revamping?

    That's what concerns me more than any simplistc measure of judgment or experience in the past.
    • ^
    • v
    Polimom said: "There’s simply no way to predict with certainty how an individual will respond real-time in the presidential pressure-cooker."

    I'm sorry, but I would have to disagree. As in any job interview, experience and track records are revealing of how candidates act in the Oval Office:

    Bush II had little experience of foreign affairs, and little curiosity. Not surprisingly, he tended to rely on Cheney, Rummy, and Rice...who all played the critical roles in determining how his administration responded.
    Clinton had book knowledge of foreign affairs, but lacked the experience to tell the UN and NGOs to piss off on their demands the US re-enter Somalia (where Bush 1 had wisely pulled out of). He got burned...and with the experience of being burned, made sure he stayed out of Rwanda.
    Bush 1 had massive foreign policy experience...which revealed itself in his launching a reassessment of Gorbachev, and the pulling together of a massive coalition in Gulf War 1.

    I could go on...essentially, I believe experience is revealing of how the leader will respond to crisis. There was no one...in 1939...who had any doubt how Churchill would respond to Hitler.

    McCain...there is a track record of decades. Clinton, less of one, but people know how she would deal with crisis.

    Obama...it is largely a mystery. We know McCain and Clinton can take a lot of damage and survive. Obama has a history of ducking tough votes, and the legislative achievement he points to in Illinois was apparently the work of his mentor who took bills from others and gave them to Obama to pad his resume.

    Here is a fascinating piece on Obama's background -- sourced, with Democrats in Ill who will speak on the record (not anonymous blurbs as in a NYT hit piece) - written by a reporter with considerable knowledge of Obama's career.

    From "The Houston Press", by Todd Spivak.

    Here is a link:

    http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/bar...
    • ^
    • v
    Also, in the interest of bipartisanship and moderation...both Clinton and McCain have demonstrated records of reaching across the aisle, and working with people on the other side.

    Obama, for all his talk of building bridges and such, has nothing in this regard.

    As an iconoclast conservative, I don't like any of the candidates really...but I would support one advocating universal healthcare in the US (though that doesn't really affect me, I think it is the mark of a civilized nation)...but I do think experience matters.
    • ^
    • v
    Even if Obama had said nothing about Iraq in 2002, Clinton and McCain’s poor judgment would still be a factor. It’s disingenuous to say, as McCain has, that Obama’s only looking backward. He’s not — but he is pointing out one of the very few measures we can take.


    I think this is very well said. Naturally McCain and Clinton don't want anyone to look back.

    As for experience, it has been mentioned above that people like Cheney and Rumsfeld had plenty of experience. What really matters is good judgment.

    And I agree it's a shame there aren't more examples either way for all three candidates.